Meta

As many celebrate the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birthday – this marks 200 years since his birth, the nation stands at a crossroads in acceptance of the implications of his interpretations of the myriad of mysteries discovered by him and his Beagle in the Galapagos so many years ago.

Before you dismiss this article as another religious viewpoint on the issue of how life originated on this planet, let me suggest that openness to scientific principles is not what has brought us to this point. Recent trends in sociological patterns and cultural development seem to indicate that we are digressing as a result of anti-intellectualism where emotions rather than intellect tend to dominate and shape public policy. I would say that we need a new renaissance to emerge, an enlightenment where decisions based on facts and solid foundations and goodwill among differing parties can occur.

For example, we are currently letting our elected officials battle for our very existence over whether we spend another $900 billion or so we don’t have at the same time attempting to support entitlement programs with an increasing elderly population and a decreasing working (taxable) population. Irrational problem solving is prevailing in the clear face of our own destruction.

Similarly, we debate a whole host of items from a bully pulpit standpoint rather than a rational, logical thinking framework and then when one side doesn’t get their way, off to court it goes for a judge to decide. Emotions rule, logic is chucked out the window. How else can you explain, regardless of your viewpoint, how a court could render a decision on the “right” of an individual to kill an unborn child when the clear unambiguous language of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? (EDIT 4/11/09 – Ok so it is not the clear language of the Constitution, but rather the Declaration of Independence. Nonetheless, the Constitution’s language is clearly on the side of the protection of innocent life).

It is no different when it comes to the issue of evolution. Emotions rule not on both sides but on all sides because this is an issue that requires patience and persistence to understand what science has actually shown to be true and what implications these truths have in understanding the past. Science has given us some extraordinary information regarding population changes and how natural selection plays a role in this, but contrary to what many experts may suggest on various sides of the debate, there is much to be tested, discovered and understood before a pronouncement is made to the likes of climate science where one man by fiat pronouncement renders a decision – “the science is settled”.

It ain’t settled folks. And neither is bigfoot. We need clear thinking, rational and cordial dialogue amongst scientists of different persuasions and good science to guide us. In the current atmosphere where the biggest, loudest voices dictate, this isn’t happening. Pray for a change. Real change.